Maybe, you need a reality check. I mean, I have already tried to give you one many times now, but you have been ignoring them and blaming me for things that you don't want to talk about because you know that I am right about. You cannot just suspend someone's powers because you don't like them. You need to talk to them first. Even, I, the "dictator", know that. You need to realize that you are just one part of this wiki, not the leader. That is something that you and I should have learned by now.

I have reinstated your powers. I did not know if you intended to block me or not. The fact that I don't know if I believe you is really troubling.

I don't understand what you mean by me having a reality check. What do I know you are right about?

"You cannot just suspend someone's powers because you don't like them." - I would never suspend someone's powers or block them because I don't like them. In the short time I suspended you, this is what I was thinking:

1. Two active users have called for your demotion.

2. Other users have acknowledged that they are afraid of being blocked, because of your blocking behavior.

3. I made a blocking policy so that administrators cannot abuse their blocking powers. I want the blocking tool to be used FAIRLY.

4. You were already suspended before for a different reason. You continue to disagree with most people here.

5. You unfairly blocked two users WITHOUT WARNING, and this was AFTER the blocking policy was passed.

6. You blocked me with the comment "Inserting opinion in articles: He was not unfairly blocked" - I assumed that you blocked me because I unblocked Florenceischocolate.

The truth is: I don't hate anyone. I like your work ethic. I like your quality-control mindset. I like your committment to the wiki. However, I am frustrated by your behavior when it comes to other users. I want this to be a friendly, stable place.

First, I am right that you (I can't believe I am typing this) are out of control. Yes, I wrote it. Your hypocrocy is amazing. You claim that I need to warn people before I block them, but you just removed my powers without even asking me why I (accidentally) blocked you.

1-3. I have changed my ways and have agreed to give a better system of blocking.

5. I'm not going to tell you my stance on the blocking policy again.

6. I meant to have that on Florenceischocolate's page because it makes more sense over there. I did not mean to block you.

If I agree to start warning people (1 warning), will you please get rid of that blocking policy?

Also, you might want to look at the title of this thread one more time.

1. "First, I am right that you (I can't believe I am typing this) are out of control. Yes, I wrote it. Your hypocrocy is amazing. You claim that I need to warn people before I block them, but you just removed my powers without even asking me why I (accidentally) blocked you." - the reason I removed your powers is because I assumed you had gone rogue and were out of control. I had given you two warnings in regards to two blocks and you were upset that I had unblocked ther person you blocked. In fact, that was the second time you were upset that I blocked someone.

2. When I saw that you blocked me, I knew the situation was serious, because I didn't know that the block was an accident.

3. When you blocked me after everything that has happened in the past few months, I needed to suspend your powers.

4. In our "checklist" discussion, when I realized that I could not edit posts and said so, you said "I didn't do anything. Try refreshing. If that doesn't work, then try "F5"."

Let me emphasize something here. "I didn't do anything." Why would I think you did something if I was having an issue on my computer? Why would I assume you did something. When I realized that you blocked me, I thought "I didn't do anything" was some sort of denial that you blocked me, perhaps regretting the decision. I may never know if you really intended on blocking me or if it was just an accident. I wasn't sure, so I reinstated your powers.

5. I would be willing to change the policy to 2 warnings. That means a person must make the same violation 3 times before being blocked. I hope we can compromise on that.

6. We need to end this. This has been going on too long and we cannot have such controversy in the wiki. I don't understand what exactly you have a problem with, but I have given you so many chances:

1st chance: When JCM suspended you in January, several people called for your permanent demotion. I was hesitant, and called for a suspension instead.

2nd chance: There were 7 supports and 1 oppose to your 3-month suspension. I was one of the supporters. Instead, I reinstated your powers and did not go through with the three month suspension.

3rd chance: In early February, some users were getting tired of your behaviors/actions. I got an e-mail calling for your demotion. Instead of acting on a demotion request, I decided to continue trying to reason with you.

4th chance: In early April, things got worse with your blocking actions. People were afraid of being blocked by you. I got yet another lengthy e-mail explaining why you should be demoted. Instead, I opted to create an official blocking policy to establish rules in regards to blocking.

5th chance: Despite the passing of the blocking policy, you continued to block people without warning. When you blocked me, I thought you went rogue, and so I suspended your powers, only to restore them, even though I am still not sure if you blocked my on purpose or by accident.

5 chances. I have given you 5 chances.

7. We need to resolve this. This must end. Here is my idea. I want you to follow the policies the community has agreed upon, and yes, that includes the blocking policy. I also want you to make a list of grievences. Make it as a subpage of your user page or something, and do the following three things:

1. Make a list of things for which you have issues

2. Give a reason for why you are concerned with each of those issues

3. Give your idea of a solution to that issue.

Also, do not be unreasonable. I am sure you want this to end just as much as me and everyone else. So, make a page, list all your complaints, all your concerns, anything you think should be changed/added in regards to policies, and any questions you have in regards to anything relating to any issue.

Remember, we are a community and we welcome new people. We don't want to scare them away. We want this to be a friendly, productive place. The policies are in place to create stability. We cannot have people making their own rules. You have to understand that sometimes people will not agree with you.

8. "You need to realize that you are just one part of this wiki, not the leader."

Here's another thing. Yes, I am part of the wiki. I am one of the leaders. There are four bureaucrats. I will tell you that as far as a I know, 4 administrators have expressed concerns with your actions, and 2 of them have corresponded with me privately.

They can very well be involved in this conversation and directly speak to you, as I have been. However, they have appeared to entrust me with the situation. As a bureaucrat, I have a responsibility to see that things run smoothly around here, and that is what I intend on doing. And yes, that includes making sure new people are welcome and not scared away.

First, please start pressing the quote button, I really don't need to re-read what I have wrote especially when it is already a long post. It also would help me so that I can just skip over it and then refer back to it instead of having to scroll back to my post to figure out if you took something out of context. The only reason I didn't for this post is because it is two posts and it is harder to do quoting.

4. For the second paragraph, you could just trust me.

5. I think that 1 is enough, I am starting to agree with you about if there is a few months in between the breaking of the rules, then warn them again, but I think it is unreasonable if someone, for example, added false information 1 day and then the next day added it again after an admin already told them to stop, so, an admin has to tell them again. I think if that happens a second time a 2 hour block is reasonable.

6. How is the first 4 chances not evidence that people hate me? In reference to the 5th chance, as I said earlier, "Who would block a bureaucrat?" I didn't even know I could.

7. Okay, but please at least consider getting rid of the blocking policy, it is the least you can do.

8. See, you consider yourself a leader and not a contributer. You may have more power, but you do not get to just abuse that power by unblocking people without consulting the blocker first. I think we've also learned how dependent you are on that power by how quick you both removed my powers and made this thread after I accidentally blocked you.

This gives me an idea, one day a year both the bureaucrats and the admins loose all power for that day. And when I say a day, I mean 24 hours. I think that we all need this to get back down to Earth (headfirst).

2. Since you rank above 120d, AMK152, you can unblock yourself, and then see what may have happened. There are ways to do so. Read the reason of blockage. Look at your or 120d's message wall(s).

3. A tiny demotion is good. Not forever, but a week, or two.

4. "I didn't do anything." That is a huge statement, and can only be said when you absolutely positively DID not do it.

5. Ok, here is what I think.

(From 5) The 2 warning policy for minor offenses. If someone keeps editing out of control (junk categories, or bad stuff like that) then they get a 2 hour block to fix up the error. If someone does something major, figure a one day block, BUT they come to AMK152, or AW10 (the active crats) to tell them of such block. And you (AMK152, and/or AW10) can keep it or undo it.

6. 5 chances is good. But everyone should get it by chance 2 or 3.

7. I think that is a good idea for him.

8. That is concerning when all the one's with power are concerned over this. If a user who got blocked was concerned, but no one else was, eh, no big deal.

6. Without knowing your power isn't good. Plus, 4 chances (and another one) is a lot.

7. I think using this policy will do harm, and good. It'll harm because Admins could get held back from doing good. It's good, so things like this discussion don't happen.

8. We are all contributors. And certain one's of us are leaders. With bad behavior, and Admin powers, no leadership.

°°°I'd like to point out right here. 120d blocks for good reasons. I think he has good judgement. Another Admin (Puppets) has blocked other users as well. I see that Puppets has done wrong, compared to 120d. He blocked users over a month after their offense. I posted a message on his wall, and since he is semi-active, I got no response. Yet.

False info would be something such as: (ie. On the Hello Bikini Bottom! page. Someone puts SpongeBob dies, and everyone leaves Bikini Bottom, and dies too. This would be false, and info from Gone.)

I probably should have been specific when I talked about false information. The most recent is a person made Mable Jenkin's = Fred's mother on the page "Party Pooper Pants" page. Actually, I think I know what he or she was trying to do. It is not his mother and he or she was trying to change it without effecting it . I will change it. It actually says both "Fred's mother" and "Fred's Father", but there is no proof of this.

1. I am renumbering certain things sometimes, so it is pointless to quote at times.

2. "For the second paragraph, you could just trust me." - it's really hard to after the past few months.

3. 2 warnings. But we can also include blocking policies for specific violations.

4. "How is the first 4 chances not evidence that people hate me?" it's not evidence that people hate you, quit assuming that.

5. I will not get rid of the blocking policy. We need it. We can modify it, but we shouldn't get rid of it.

6. "See, you consider yourself a leader and not a contributer." - how can a leader not contribute?

7. "You may have more power, but you do not get to just abuse that power by unblocking people without consulting the blocker first." - I unblocked them because they were unfairly blocked and the blocker (you) was abusing the blocking tool and breaking the blocking policy.

8. "I think we've also learned how dependent you are on that power by how quick you both removed my powers and made this thread after I accidentally blocked you." - I was quick because I thought you had gone rogue. I wasn't sure if you were going to start blocking other administrators or users.

9. "This gives me an idea, one day a year both the bureaucrats and the admins loose all power for that day." - why? that will not accomplish anything.

10. "Also, How do I tell someone not to add false information. I cannot just tell them to stop because they might not know that the information is false." - if they don't know it's false, tell them. You cannot block someone if that person was not intentionally trying to ruin the article.

11. "Another problem with doing the multiple warning is that I am sure users do not want to read the same or a similar warning after they have read the first warning." - well, they should. If they don't listen and break the rule too many times, they will be blocked.

12. "I like this plan. It would help so that blockers don't have to write things over and over again." - alternatively, we can have pre-defined blocking templates. Someone has already suggested this.

13. Question for you: Why do you keep criticizing me as a bureaucrat and using my powers? I am only using them to help the wiki, not hurt the wiki.

120d! Please listen! You're being unfair. You called us too soft for wanting you to be nicer. You're blocking people for little to no reason, because you say you don't NEED to be friendly, as long as you are helpful and productive, which you AREN'T.

He may not be a nice guy (as some users say) or he might be really nice, but irritated by people who add false information, trolling, vandalism and saying innapropo language (and for some reason adding captions to galleries. I really don't know what's wrong with that) and maybe he's going through some rough times.

My advice to 120d: Maybe take a little break and think about your blocking reasons. Maybe be a little less strict.

EVERY ADMIN OR CRAT OR CHAT MOD IS EQUAL TO EVERY USER AND EVERYONE SHOULD BE FRIENDLY, AND SHOULD ALWAYS ENCOURAGE USERS, UNLESS THEY ARE BEING RUDE AND THE USER WITH THE AUTHORITY IS TRYING TO BREAK UP THE FIGHT.

I mean, there's a blocking policy. Please follow the policy. I know you may not, 120d, but at least be a little less strict. Give out warnings before blocking people.

He may not be a nice guy (as some users say) or he might be really nice, but irritated by people who add false information, trolling, vandalism and saying innapropo language (and for some reason adding captions to galleries. I really don't know what's wrong with that) and maybe he's going through some rough times.

My advice to 120d: Maybe take a little break and think about you blocking reasons. Maybe be a little less strict.

EVERY ADMIN OR CRAT OR CHAT MOD IS EQUAL TO EVERY USER AND EVERYONE SHOULD BE FRIENDLY, AND SHOULD ALWAYS ENCOURAGE USERS, UNLESS THEY ARE BEING RUDE AND THE USER WITH THE AUTHORITY IS TRYING TO BREAK UP THE FIGHT.

I mean, there's a blocking policy. Please follow the policy. I know you may not, 120d, but at least be a little less strict. Give out warnings before blocking people.

-Another speech from Omgitskittykatty

First paragraph, adding captions is against the rules, it is not my rule. I wouldn't block people for it if it wasn't a rule.

Second paragraph, "...about your blocking reasons."

For everyone, let's say that I have turned over a new leaf, I will be a better person on this WIKI.

Since I feel this is going nowhere, I'm just at the point of frustration now.

1. Since November and all the "incidents" we've been having, I don't think we can trust you, just yet.

2. 2 Warnings is good. You can block for a specfic reason (ie If someone is being a troll).

3. The Blocking Policy is good. I think if you think that it needs to be abolished, that's an Uh Oh in my eyes. Besides, you can talk with AMK152, and see if you can rework a few things on it.

4. 5 chances. And you've still got Administrator rights. I see no evidence of anyone hating you. But some of them come to me, AMK152, or other Admins out of frustration.

6. Crats are Crats, Admins, and Contributors (and possibly other things). Admins are Admins, and contribus. We are all leaders. That is why we have the rights. To protect the wiki, and lead it through events such as now.

7. You block everyone, out of every chance you get. You've blocked me twice, with no warning on #2.

7-A. Since this arose, you've not blocked as many people as prior. But still, it's… frustrating.

7-B. You make good judgement, and block some out of hand users.

7-C. On the other hand, you block lots of helpful people who fear you, and fear to contribute.

8. By looking at AMK152's post above this #9, that will accomplish nothing. You said yourself you didn't want the wiki to be damaged, and that will help it have that happen.

9. You can ask anyone to look up info, or read an entire section before entering new trivia.

10. You gave a guy an infinite block, and he made one edit that added as much as ten words to the article! You blocked me, without warning 59 days ago. And, Muchacha, you blocked him for changing a word! Burger, to hamburger.

11. Somedays you are a great Admin, Contributor, and Friend. On the days you aren't, you can be a bad Admin, a terrible Contributor, and an Enemy. I wish the latter never happened. But it does. And that sucks.

12. And thinking this is no big deal, you're wrong.

If you were to just edit for 5 days, without any blocking or ridiculing, you'd feel better, and the wiki would become more positive. Plus, all the Admins, and Crats can take care of this.

He may not be a nice guy (as some users say) or he might be really nice, but irritated by people who add false information, trolling, vandalism and saying innapropo language (and for some reason adding captions to galleries. I really don't know what's wrong with that) and maybe he's going through some rough times.

My advice to 120d: Maybe take a little break and think about you blocking reasons. Maybe be a little less strict.

EVERY ADMIN OR CRAT OR CHAT MOD IS EQUAL TO EVERY USER AND EVERYONE SHOULD BE FRIENDLY, AND SHOULD ALWAYS ENCOURAGE USERS, UNLESS THEY ARE BEING RUDE AND THE USER WITH THE AUTHORITY IS TRYING TO BREAK UP THE FIGHT.

I mean, there's a blocking policy. Please follow the policy. I know you may not, 120d, but at least be a little less strict. Give out warnings before blocking people.

-Another speech from Omgitskittykatty

First paragraph, adding captions is against the rules, it is not my rule. I wouldn't block people for it if it wasn't a rule.

Second paragraph, "...about your blocking reasons."

For everyone, let's say that I have turned over a new leaf, I will be a better person on this WIKI.

He may not be a nice guy (as some users say) or he might be really nice, but irritated by people who add false information, trolling, vandalism and saying innapropo language (and for some reason adding captions to galleries. I really don't know what's wrong with that) and maybe he's going through some rough times.

My advice to 120d: Maybe take a little break and think about you blocking reasons. Maybe be a little less strict.

EVERY ADMIN OR CRAT OR CHAT MOD IS EQUAL TO EVERY USER AND EVERYONE SHOULD BE FRIENDLY, AND SHOULD ALWAYS ENCOURAGE USERS, UNLESS THEY ARE BEING RUDE AND THE USER WITH THE AUTHORITY IS TRYING TO BREAK UP THE FIGHT.

I mean, there's a blocking policy. Please follow the policy. I know you may not, 120d, but at least be a little less strict. Give out warnings before blocking people.

-Another speech from Omgitskittykatty

First paragraph, adding captions is against the rules, it is not my rule. I wouldn't block people for it if it wasn't a rule.

Second paragraph, "...about your blocking reasons."

For everyone, let's say that I have turned over a new leaf, I will be a better person on this WIKI.

1. Oh, okay.

2. Thanks, dude.

For your final sentence, how can we be sure?

Is it being like Plankton in New Leaf? Or have you actually turned over one.

Since I feel this is going nowhere, I'm just at the point of frustration now.

1. Since November and all the "incidents" we've been having, I don't think we can trust you, just yet.

2. 2 Warnings is good. You can block for a specfic reason (ie If someone is being a troll).

3. The Blocking Policy is good. I think if you think that it needs to be abolished, that's an Uh Oh in my eyes. Besides, you can talk with AMK152, and see if you can rework a few things on it.

4. 5 chances. And you've still got Administrator rights. I see no evidence of anyone hating you. But some of them come to me, AMK152, or other Admins out of frustration.

6. Crats are Crats, Admins, and Contributors (and possibly other things). Admins are Admins, and contribus. We are all leaders. That is why we have the rights. To protect the wiki, and lead it through events such as now.

7. You block everyone, out of every chance you get. You've blocked me twice, with no warning on #2.

7-A. Since this arose, you've not blocked as many people as prior. But still, it's… frustrating.

7-B. You make good judgement, and block some out of hand users.

7-C. On the other hand, you block lots of helpful people who fear you, and fear to contribute.

8. By looking at AMK152's post above this #9, that will accomplish nothing. You said yourself you didn't want the wiki to be damaged, and that will help it have that happen.

9. You can ask anyone to look up info, or read an entire section before entering new trivia.

10. You gave a guy an infinite block, and he made one edit that added as much as ten words to the article! You blocked me, without warning 59 days ago. And, Muchacha, you blocked him for changing a word! Burger, to hamburger.

11. Somedays you are a great Admin, Contributor, and Friend. On the days you aren't, you can be a bad Admin, a terrible Contributor, and an Enemy. I wish the latter never happened. But it does. And that sucks.

12. And thinking this is no big deal, you're wrong.

If you were to just edit for 5 days, without any blocking or ridiculing, you'd feel better, and the wiki would become more positive. Plus, all the Admins, and Crats can take care of this.

This is a lot. But I think it can help you.
</div>

10. I never and I mean NEVER, give out an ifinite block for one edit. I may have blocked him or her once, but he or she did not edit only once. Also, I am about to threaten to block the next person who brings up the "burger" to "hamburger" thing. I frickin' get it. I BLOCKED MUCHACHA AFTER CHANGING "BURGER" TO "HAMBURGER"!!!

Paragraph after 12., I don't think you can. I can't leave for a few hours before several of the pages that I follow have false info, unneeded info, or other stuff. I think the most likely reason is that I feel like I am the only one who looks at the history. I would love if the normal users could check before they edit. The worse thing is when someone's added something like unneeded info, then another user edits with a good edit. This makes me have to go into the page and remove it manually instead of the easier way, reverting the edit.

This next part also answers your latest post. I have actually turned over a new leaf. I would also like you to use "blocked", and not "block" when referring to my past actions.

Tanhamman wrote:10. But you did. He was unblocked, but you did give him that.

Plus what about WinslowOddballs456?

YOu are acting like you are this wiki's god. YOu are not. No one is. NOt even AMK152.

I said without blocking. You can revert edits, and edit on the wiki.

Just don't block for a few days.

It would help if I knew who this "guy" was.

Do not get me started about WinslowOddballs456. He or she vandalized and adding false info a lot. I even warned him or her. Again, I gave him or her an ifinite block, not because he or she editted once, but that I blocked him or her once for multiple actions.

I am not. I just don't like to be prosecuted unfairly.

No, if someone is going has been warned before, I will block him or her. I am still an admin; I still have a job to do. It would help if you people would let me do my job. I don't question how you block. I don't make a proposal to stop the way you block just because you were editting "unfairly" according to the people who were blocked.

Tanhamman wrote:10. But you did. He was unblocked, but you did give him that.

Plus what about WinslowOddballs456?

YOu are acting like you are this wiki's god. YOu are not. No one is. NOt even AMK152.

I said without blocking. You can revert edits, and edit on the wiki.

Just don't block for a few days.

It would help if I knew who this "guy" was.

Do not get me started about WinslowOddballs456. He or she vandalized and adding false info a lot. I even warned him or her. Again, I gave him or her an ifinite block, not because he or she editted once, but that I blocked him or her once for multiple actions.

I am not. I just don't like to be prosecuted unfairly.

No, if someone is going has been warned before, I will block him or her. I am still an admin; I still have a job to do. It would help if you people would let me do my job. I don't question how you block.

I can't remember who it was.

He was unblocked by Spongebob456 for "infinite is too long".

He makes good points in threads, and you can WARN him now.

No one wants to be prosecuted unfairly. Oh, wait. That is what you've done to many people.

I'm an admin too, and am not as insane with blocking rage like you. I don't want to question your authority, or blocking tactics, but it's concerning how you block people for little things.

Tanhamman wrote:10. But you did. He was unblocked, but you did give him that.

Plus what about WinslowOddballs456?

YOu are acting like you are this wiki's god. YOu are not. No one is. NOt even AMK152.

I said without blocking. You can revert edits, and edit on the wiki.

Just don't block for a few days.

It would help if I knew who this "guy" was.

Do not get me started about WinslowOddballs456. He or she vandalized and adding false info a lot. I even warned him or her. Again, I gave him or her an ifinite block, not because he or she editted once, but that I blocked him or her once for multiple actions.

I am not. I just don't like to be prosecuted unfairly.

No, if someone is going has been warned before, I will block him or her. I am still an admin; I still have a job to do. It would help if you people would let me do my job. I don't question how you block.

I can't remember who it was.

He was unblocked by Spongebob456 for "infinite is too long".

He makes good points in threads, and you can WARN him now.

No one wants to be prosecuted unfairly. Oh, wait. That is what you've done to many people.

I'm an admin too, and am not as insane with blocking rage like you. I don't want to question your authority, or blocking tactics, but it's concerning how you block people for little things.

BURGER TO HAMBURGER? REALLY?
</div>

Fourth line, you do want me to get angry, don't you? All your doing is poking the bear. This was not okay. I do not, did not, will not, and have not EVER prosecute unfairly. (This is the time where you bring up the at least two times that I actually did. Although, one of those I blame on the SpongeBob animators.)

Start using past tense please. ("you did", not "you've done")

Fifth line, I am not on a blocking rage. I never was and never will. I am blocking people because they do not follow the rules. Little things are important. There is a difference between the word "gay" and "homosexual". Homosexual means "sexually attracted to people of one's own sex"; and gay means "lighthearted and carefree", or that its original definition.

There is a difference between the word "gay" and "homosexual". Homosexual means "sexually attracted to people of one's own sex"; and gay means "lighthearted and carefree", or that its original definition.

There is a difference between the word "gay" and "homosexual". Homosexual means "sexually attracted to people of one's own sex"; and gay means "lighthearted and carefree", or that its original definition.

What's with the red?

What does that have to do with that?

I assume you are talking about the first paragraph. It is to enphasise that words can mean different things in different groups.

It's called revoking admin rights until further notice. You do not need to make a thread, you do not need to explain yourself to the person, you need only give your reasoning to a fellow Admin/Beaurucrat and leave it to them. This is unnecassary and you two are bickering like children. I'd suggest that you two get it together, and give your sides to an admin/bc, and see what will happen from there. If this happens again, you can have his rights removed, for multiple offenses of the same thing.